NRLF 


FEDERAL  PHOOSCTIOIT  OF 
MIG-RATOHY  B  153)2 

By  Geo.  A,   Lav;yer 

U.S.D.A.   Ho*    785 


1919 


v'ldi::  fV 


FEDERAL  PROTECTION  OF 
MIGRATORY  BIRDS 


BY 


GEORGE  A.  LAWYER 
Chief  U.  S.  Game  Warden,  Bureau  of  Biological  Survey 


CONTENTS 

Page 

Bird  Protection  an  Economic  Question 3 

State  Protection  of  Birds 3 

Federal  Migratory-Bird  Law  of  1913  and  Its  Repeal 6 

The  Migratory-Bird  Treaty 7 

The  Migratory-Bird  Treaty  Act 8 

Regulations  Under  the  Treaty  Act 10 

Game  Farming 13 

Control  of  Bird  Depredations 14 

Administration  of  the  Law 15 

Future  Outlook  for  Migratory  Birds .  16 


Separate  from  Yearbook  of  the 
Department  of  Agriculture,  1918 

No.  785 


WASHINQTON  :  QOVERNMENT  PRINTINQ  OFFICE  :  I9I9 


/1/§>S 


;§trip..-I'oie=u3 .  xviaiaiitoiy 


fcl 


FEDERAL  PROTECTION  OF  MIGRATORY  BIRDS. 

*""*  By  George  A.  Lawyer, 

*f<  Chief  U.  S.  Game  Warden,  Bureau  of  Biological  Survey. 

^  BIRD  PROTECTION  AN  ECONOMIC  QUESTION. 

THE  MYRIADS  of  migratory  birds  that  fairly  astounded 
the  early  explorers  of  this  country  before  its  virgin 
forests  had  been  destroyed,  its  green  fields  trodden  to  dust 
by  the  feet  of  tramping  millions,  or  its  silences  broken  by 
the  din  of  thousands  of  cities,  have  inspired  the  writing  of 
volumes  of  literature.  These  volumes  have  told  of  the 
wanton  and  thoughtless  slaughter  of  the  birds,  and  have 
given  warning  of  their  certain  disappearance  with  the  set- 
tlement of  the  country  and  the  usurpation  of  the  forests, 
fields,  and  streams  that  had  f-urnished  shelter,  food,  and 
breeding  places  for  these  feathered  hosts.  Other  volumes 
have  set  forth  the  steps  that  should  be  taken  to  save  the  birds 
from  the  ultimate  extinction  threatened  by  the  acts  of  people 
ignorant  of  their  real  economic  value,  and  have  told  of 
the  annual  destruction  of  millions  of  dollars'  worth  of  for- 
ests and  crops  by  injurious  insects  formerly  kept  under  sub- 
jection by  the  birds.  Yet  all  the  while  the  birds  were  actu- 
ally being  exterminated,  in  spite  of  such  protection  as  could 
•  be  afforded  by  the  law^s  of  various  States. 

The  food  value  and  economic  importance  of  the  migratory 
birds  of  the  United  States,  amounting  to  many  millions  of 
dollars  annually,  justify  the  widespread  interest  in  their 
preservation.  Not  less  important  is  the  esthetic  value  of 
birds — the  inspiration  and  stimulus  which  they  give  to  the 
moral  sense,  and  the  charm  and  beauty  which  they  lend  to 
the  life  of  all  our  people.  Researches  by  the  Bureau  of 
Biological  Survey  into  the  economic  value  of  insectivorous 
birds  have  proved  that  they  insure  the  farmer  against  out- 
breaks of  insect  pests,  a  most  serious  menace  to  the  agricul- 
tural wealth  of  the  country.  Valuable  in  other  ways  are  the 
game  birds,  which  not  only  furnish  delightful  and  pleasing 
recreation  to  the  great  army  of  American  sportsmen,  but  add 
materially  to  the  food  supply  of  millions  of  people. 

STATE  PROTECTION  OF  BIRDS. 

The  measures  necessary  to  insure  adequate  protection  for 
bird  life  have  been  well  known,  but  diversified  and  selfish 

104429°— 19 1  3 


^ 


y 


4  Yearbook  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture. 

interests  have  prevented  the  States  from  putting  these  meas- 
ures into  effect.  The  protection  of  birds  during  the  mating 
season  and  while  on  their  way  to  and  from  their  breeding 
grounds  has  been  of  prime  importance,  but  until  recent  years 
few  States  have  given  much  attention  to  this  important 
matter.  In  fact,  any  protection  by  a  closed  season  on  hunt- 
ing is  in  a  large  number  of  States  comparatively  recent, 
owing  to  the  generally  accepted  but  erroneous  belief  that 
migratory  birds  need  no  protection  and  can  be  hunted  when- 
ever present  from  the  time  they  make  their  first  appearance 
in  spring  and  fall. 

The  growth  of  sentiment  for  the  conservation  of  so  valu- 
able a  resource  by  preventing  destruction  through  spring 
shooting  of  game  birds,  and  by  enacting  other  protective 
measures,  has  been  notable  in  the  last  half  century.  The 
number  of  States  affording  waterfowl  no  legal  protection 
has  come  to  be  in  invei*se  ratio  to  the  number  prohibiting 
all  spring  shooting,  wliile  between  these  extremes  are  all 
gradations,  including  partial  protection  of  all  species  and 
the  permission  of  more  or  less  spring  shooting.  The  various 
phases  are  readily  compared  by  decades  in  the  accompanying 
tabulation  covering  the  10-year  periods  since  1870 : 

mate  protection  of  waterfowl  at  the  end  of  lO-year  periods  from  1870 
to  1910  and  in  1912  and  1918,  us  reflected  hy  various  phases  of  legis- 
lation of  the  48  States  or  of  legislation  for  the  territory  now  covered 
by  them. 


Phases  of  legislation. 

Number  of  States  in  the  years— 

1870 

1880 

1890 

1900 

1910 

1912 

1918 

Prohibiting  all  spring  shooting. 

1 

5 

2 
3 

5 
1 

1 
1 

9 

1 
1 
1 

14 

18 

31 

Prohibiting  all  spring  shooting  but  protecting 
only  a  few  species 

Prohibitiiig  spring  shooting  of  a  few  but  pro- 
tecting aU  species 

2 
1 

1 

24 
6 

1 

Permitting  spring  shooting  but  protecting  only 
a  few  species 

2 

- 

Permitting  spring  sheeting  but  protecting  a 
few  or  all  species  locallj' 

1 

25 
3 

1 

13 
3 

Permitting  spring  shooting  but  protecting  all 
species 

6 
36 

17 
24 

23 

17 



26 
10 

ACfording  no  l€^al  protection  whatever 

Federal  Protection  of  Migratory  Birds.  5 

The  number  of  States  making  efforts  to  prohibit  spring  / 
shooting  fluctuated  from  year  to  year,  and  some  States  fre- 
quently changed  columns.  Furthermore,  the  progress  was 
slow  and  uncertain,  and  the  laws  were  not  always  well  en- 
forced. In  this  progress,  our  shorebirds  have  been  among 
the  most  sadly  neglected.  Many  of  the  smaller  species  have 
not  been  protected  in  spring.  It  thus  appears  that  while 
birds  are  adequately  protected  by  the  laws  of  some  States, 
their  migratory  instincts  and  seasonal  movements  are  such 
that  the  open  seasons  under  State  laws  added  together  per- 
mit birds  to  be  killed  over  parts  of  their  entire  range  during 
every  month  of  the  year. 

Unreasonably  long  open  seasons  for  wild  fowl  prevail  in 
13  States,  varying  in  length  from  five  to  seven  and  one-half 
months.  No  species  can  long  withstand  the  drain  of  inces- 
sant shooting  during  such  long  open  seasons;  and  the  de- 
struction of  the  breeding  grounds  of  the  birds,  the  increased 
number  of  hunters,  modern  firearms,  and  improved  methods 
of  transportation  to  regions  hitherto  remote  have  made  prac- 
tically certain  the  utter  extermination  of  our  migratory 
birds  if  they  receive  only  such  protection  as  the  States  alone 
are  able  to  afford. 

FEDERAL  MIGRATORY-BIRD  LAW  OF  1913  AND  ITS  REPEAL. 

The  long  and  futile  efforts  of  the  States  finally  convinced  ^ 
State  game  commissioners,  sportsmen,  conservationists,  and 
others  that  the  uniform  and  adequate  preservation  of  mi- 
gratory birds  and  an  equalization  of  hunting  opportunities 
depended  upon  the  exercise  of  a  supervisory  jurisdiction  on 
the  part  of  the  Federal  Government.  To  this  end  a  bill 
was  introduced  in  Congress  in  1904,  but  it  was  so  novel  in 
its  objects  and  legal  character  that  it  failed  of  passage,  y 
From  the  time  of  its  introduction,  however,  the  subject  was 
kept  before  Congress  in  one  form  or  another  almost  con- 
tinuously until  the  enactment  of  the  migratory-bird  law 
of  1913. 

This  Federal  statute  merely  conferred  on  the  United  States       / 
Department  of  Agriculture  the  power  to  fix  closed  seasons 
during  which  it  would  be  unlawful  to  capture  or  kill  migra- 
tory birds.     For  this  reason,  it  proved  very  imperfect  and 


6  Yearhooh  of  the  DepartTnent  of  Agriculture. 

quite  incapable  of  effective  enforcement,  but  it  exerted  a 
wonderful  influence  upon  the  public  mind,  ai^d  its  passage 
laid  the  first  real  foundation  for  the  actual  preservation  of 
our  migratory  birds. 

The  regulations  adopted  under  this  act  enjoined  spring 
shooting  throughout  the  United  States,  and  the  extent  of 
their  observance  is  a  splendid  tribute  to  the  sportsmen  of  the 
/country.  Fully  95  per  cent  of  the  sportsmen  abided  by  this 
^  mandate  and  refrained  from  hunting  during  the  closed  sea- 
sons. The  result  was  almost  instantaneous.  Waterfowl  and 
other  migratory  game  birds  at  once  not  only  showed  a 
marked  increase  in  numbers,  but,  owing  to  the  cessation  of 
spring  shooting,  remained  unmolested  in  ever-increasing 
numbers  to  breed  in  places  from  which  formerly  they  had 
been  driven  every  spring  by  incessant  shooting.  At  the  end 
of  the  5-year  period  during  which  this  law  was  in  opera- 
tion. State  game  commissioners,  leading  sportsmen,  and  con- 
servationists were  practically  unanimous  in  their  expression 
that  wild  fowl  were  more  abundant  than  at  any  time  in  the 
25  years  preceding,  and  in  attributing  this  increase  to  the 
abolition  of  spring  shooting  and  the  general  observance  of 
the  Federal  statute. 

The  very  marked  improvement  in  conditions  under  this 
law  instilled  a  new  spirit-  into  sportsmen  and  showed  the 
wonderful  possibilities  under  a  Federal  law  broad  and  com- 
'  prehensive  enough  not  only  to  protect  the  birds  during  the 
mating  and  breeding  season,  but  to  equalize  hunting  privi- 
leges and  opportunities  by  removing  the  incongruities  still 
existing  under  State  laws. 

The  constitutionality  of  the  law  was  attacked  in  the 
courts,  but  before  it  was  passed  upon  by  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  the  law  was  repealed  by  the  enactment  of 
more  effective  legislation  in  1918.  The  constitutionality  of 
the  law  of  1913  thus  became  a  dead  issue  and  on  motion  of 
the  Attorney  General  the  appeal  in  the  case  ^  was  dismissed 
on  January  6,  1919.  In  its  action  the  court  did  not  pass 
upon  the  constitutionality  of  the  law  and  this, now  remains 
a  moot  question. 

*  United  States  V9.  Harry  Shanver. 


Federal  Protection  of  Migratory  Birds.  '  7 

THE  MIGRATORY-BIRD  TREATY. 

When  the  migratory-bird  law  was  passed,  sportsmen  and 
conservationists  had  in  mind  the  enactment  not  only  of  a 
more  comprehensive  Federal  statute  but  of  uniform  inter- 
national legislation,  such  legislation  as  would  insure  ade- 
quate protection  to  birds  on  their  breeding  grounds  and  in 
their  winter  homes.  To  this  end  the  United  States  Senate 
in  1913  adopted  a  resolution  memorializing  the  President  to 
negotiate  treaties  with  other  countries  for  the  protection  of 
migratory  birds.  As  a  result  of  negotiation  thus  initiated 
a  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  for  the 
protection  of  birds  migrating  between  the  United  States  and 
Canada  was  concluded  at  Washington,  August  16,  1916,  and 
ratified  December  7  of  the  same  year.  Altogether,  537  i/ 
species  'of  migi^atory  birds  are  included  in  the  various  fami- 
lies protected  by  the  treaty,  and  all  individual  birds  of 
each  of  these  families  or  species  are  included,  even  though 
a  few  individuals  may  be  found  within  the  borders  of  any 
State  the  entire  year.  In  other  words,  if  a  few  individuals 
of  any  species  of  migratory  bird  remain  for  an  indefinite 
period  in  a  particular  State  this  fact  does  not  take  from 
them  their  migratory  character  and  thus  remove  them  from 
the  operation  of  the  law. 

BIRDS    NOT  PROTECTED   BY  THE  TREATY. 

The  treaty  does  not,  however,  include  the  gallinaceous 
birds,  as  quail,  pheasants,  grouse,  and  wild  turkeys,  and 
these  still  remain  wholly  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  sev- 
eral States.  Approximately  220  species  of  migratory  birds  / 
also  are  excluded  from  the  terms  of  the  treaty  because  they 
are  not  specifically  named  or  do  not  feed  chiefly  or  entirely 
on  insects.  Included  among  the  unprotected  birds  are  the 
skimmer,  albatross,  tropic  bird,  anhinga,  cormorant,  pelican, 
man-o'-war  bird,  flamingo,  roseate  spoonbill,  ibis,  jabiru, 
limpkin,  hawk,  owl,  parrot,  trogon,  kingfisher,  becard,  horned 
lark,  crow,  jay,  starling,  blackbird,  sparrow,  phainopepla, 
thrasher,  and  mockingbird. 


•••••      ••         •• 

••     •••  •••••• 


8  Yearbooh  of  tJie  Department  of  Agriculture. 

TERMS   or   THE   TREATY. 

The  treaty  provides  for  continuous  protection  for  migra- 
tory insectivorous  birds  and  certain  other  migratory  non- 
game  birds;  special  protection  for  5  years  for  wood  ducks 
and  eider  ducks;  a  10-year  closed  season  for  band-tailed 
pigeons,  little  brown,  sandhill,  and  whooping  cranes,  swans, 
curlews,  willet,  upland  plover,  and  all  other  shorebircls  (ex- 
cept black-bellied  and  golden  plovers,  Wilson  snipe  or  jack- 
snipe,  woodcock,  and  the  greater  and  lesser  yellow-legs)  ;  and 
confines  hunting  to  seasonable  periods  of  not  exceeding  three 
and  one-half  months  for  the  shorebirds  not  given  absolute 
protection,  and  other  migratory  game  birds. 

THE    MIGRATORY-BIRD    TREATY   ACT. 

The  treaty  provides  no  machinery  to  enforce  its  provisions, 
but  the  High  Contracting  Powers  agreed  to  enact  necessary 
legislation  to  insure  its  execution.  In  pursuance  of  this 
agreement,  the  Government  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada 
passed  the  migratory-birds'  convention  act,  which  became  a 
law  on  August  29,  1917;  and  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  passed  the  migratory-bird  treaty  act,  approved  by 
the  President  on  July  3,  1918.  The  enactment  of  this  legis- 
lation rounded  out  the  most  comprehensive  and  adequate 
scheme  for  the  protection  of  birds  ever  put  into  effect. 

Under  the  migratory-bird  treaty  act,  it  is  unlawful  to 
hunt,  capture,  kill,  possess,  sell,  purchase,  ship,  or  transport 
at  any  time  or  by  any  means  any  migratory  bird  included  in 
the  terms  of  the  treaty  except  as  permitted  by  regulations 
which  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  is  authorized  and  di- 
rected to  adopt,  and  which  become  effective  when  approved 
by  the  President.  The  act  provides  police  and  other  powers 
necessary  for  its  effective  enforcement. 

CONSTITUTIONALITY    OF    THE    TREATY    ACT. 

If  it  is  conceded,  as  it  must  be,  that  valuable  game  and 
insectivorous  birds  which  migrate  between  the  United  States 
and  Canada  are  a  proper  subject  for  the  negotiation  of  a 
treaty,  there  seems  to  be  little  likelihood  that  the  migratory- 


Yearbook  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture,  1918. 


PLATE  I. 


°  2 


Yearbook  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture,  1918. 


PLATE  II. 


PHOTO    BY    HERBERT    K.    JOB.       BII47M 

FIG.   1.— SCENE   IN    A  TYPICAL   HUNTING   SECTION    OF  THE   NORTHWEST. 
Mallards  in  slough  by  Lake  Winnipegosis,  Manitoba. 


PHOTO    BY    HERBERT    K.   JOB.      BII46M 

FIG.  2.— LESSER   SCAUP   DUCKS,    PALM    BEACH,    FLA. 
When  protected,  wild  ducks  become  remarkably  tame. 


1»  •* 


Yearbook  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture,  1918. 


PLATE   III. 


\^^ 

f                       1 

-J      o 


I-      2 


-1-         rs 


<    o 

I 


tu     '3 
CO      - 


Federal  Protection  of  Migratory  Birds.  9 

bird  treaty  act  of  July  3, 1918,  will  be  effectively  attacked  on 
the  grounds  of  constitutionality,  because  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  provides  that  "...  all  treaties  made,  or 
which  shall  be  made,  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States 
shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land;  and  the  judges  in 
every  State  shall  be  bound  thereby,  anything  in  the  constitu- 
tion or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." 

EFFECT   OF   THE   TREATY  ACT   ON    STATE   LAWS. 

The  migratory-bird  treaty  act  renders  inoperative  all  State 
and  local  laws  that  are  inconsistent  with  it,  but  it  authorizes  ^X^ 
the  several  States  to  make  and  enforce  laws  not  inconsistent 
with  the  terms  of  the  act  or  of  the  treaty,  which  shall  give 
further  protection  to  migratory  birds  and  their  nests  and 
eggs ;  but  the  open  seasons  may  not  be  extended  by  the  States 
beyond  the  dates  fixed  by  the  Federal  regulations. 

The  Federal  Government  in  effect  has  assumed  a  limited  ^ 
jurisdiction  over  migratory  birds  in  order  to  insure  their 
adequate  protection.  The  States  may  not  permit  anything 
to  be  done  which  is  prohibited  by  the  Federal  Government, 
but  they  may  enact  and  enforce  laws  or  take  other  measures 
conforming  to  the  provisions  of  the  Federal  regulations  or 
not  in  conflict  with  the  operation  of  the  Federal  law. 

It  seems  quite  clear  that  no  State  or  subdivision  of  a  State 
can  permit  migratory  birds  to  be  hunted,  killed,  possessed, 
sold,  or  transported  at  times,  by  means,  or  in  numbers  made 
unlawful  by  the  Federal  act,  but  confusion  arises  from  the 
existence,  at  the  time  of  the  enactment  of  the  Federal  statute, 
of  closed  seasons  under  State  laws  which  overlapped  either 
wholly  or  in  part  the  open  seasons  prescribed  by  the  Federal 
regulations.  If  it  is  clear  that  a  person  is  not  authorized  to 
hunt  migratory  birds  during  that  portion  of  a  State  open 
season  which  is  a  part  of  a  Federal  closed  season,  it  must  be 
equally  clear  that  a  person  may  not  hunt  during  that  por- 
tion of  the  Federal  open  season  which  is  included  in  the 
State  closed  season,  as  hunting  during  that  time  would  be 
in  violation  of  a  law  which  the  State  is  authorized  to  make 
and  enforce. 

To  ascertain  the  period  when  migratory  birds  may  be 
hunted  without  violating  either  Federal  or  State  laws,  there 


10  Yearbook  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture. 

must  be  deducted  from  the  Federal  open  season  that  portion 
of  a  State  closed  season  which  is  included  in  it. 

The  right  of  a  State  to  circumscribe  the  privileges  per- 
mitted by  the  Federal  regulations  extends  also  to  daily  bag 
limits,  possession,  transportation,  and  export  of  birds.  Per- 
sons committing  acts  permitted  by  the  Federal  regulations 
but  prohibited  by  State  laws  are  amenable,  however,  to  the 
State,  and  are  not  subject  to  prosecution  by  the  Federal 
Government. 

INTERSTATE  AND  INTERNATIONAL  TRAFFIC   IN   BIRDS. 

That  portion  of  the  United  States  Penal  Code  known  as 
the  Lacey  Act,  which  prohibits  the  illegal  interstate  ship- 
ment by  common  carrier  of  dead  bodies  of  wild  birds,  has 
also  been  superseded  by  the  treaty  act,  which  prohibits  the 
carriage  or  shipment  of  both  dead  and  live  birds  (migratory 
as  well  as  nonmigratory)  out  of  a  State  by  any  means  what- 
ever contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  State  in  w^hich  the  birds 
were  killed,  or  from  which  they  were  carried  or  shipped. 

The  provision  of  the  Lacey  Act  relating  to  the  interstate 
shipment  of  wild  animals  and  parts  thereof  and  the  penalty 
for  knowingly  receiving  illegal  shipments  still  remain  in 
force. 

REGULATIONS  UNDER  THE  TREATY  ACT. 

The  first  regulations  under  the  migratory-bird  treaty  act 
were  adopted  by  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  after  careful 
consideration  of  recommendations  and  suggestions,  and  be-, 
came  effective  on  the  approval  of  the  President,  July  31, 
1918.     Amendments  were  adopted  effective  October  25,  1918. 

The  regulations  are  prepared  by  the  Secretary  of  Agricul- 
ture, with  the  assistance  of  the  Bureau  of  Biological  Survey 
and  an  advisory  board  of  21  members  representing  all  sec- 
tions of  the  country,  a  majority  being  State  game  commis- 
sioners or  their  representatives  and  the  remainder  well- 
known  sportsmen  and  conservationists  of  wide  experience. 
The  members  of  the  board  possess  no  administrative  or  ex- 
ecutive powers,  but  their  thorough  knowledge  of  conditions 
and  requirements  enables  them  to  offer  valuable  suggestions 
in  connection  with  the  preparation  of  the  regulations.  Reg- 
ulations thus  prepared  are  calculated  not  only  to  give  ade- 


Federal  Protection  of  Migratory  Birds.  11 

quate  protection  to  the  birds,  but  also  the  highest  degree  of 
satisfaction  to  the  greatest  number  of  sportsmen  and  others 
interested  in  the  conservation  of  our  migratory  birds. 

SEASONS    FOR   KILLING   MIGRATORY   BIRDS. 

The  only  migratory  game  birds  that  under  the  regulations 
may  be  lawfully  hunted  are  waterfowl  (except  wood  duck, 
eider  ducks,  and  swans),  rails,  coot,  gallinules,  black-bellied 
and  golden  plovers,  greater  and  lesser  yellow-legs,  woodcock, 
Wilson  snipe  or  jacksnipe,  and  mourning  and  white-winged 
doves.  Practically  uniform  periods,  not  exceeding  three 
and  one-half  months,  between  September  1  and  February  1, 
are  prescribed  as  the  open  seasons  for  hunting  these  birds, 
except  that  the  open  season  for  black-bellied  and  golden 
plovers  and  greater  and  lesser  yellow-legs  in  the  States 
bordering  on  the  Atlantic  Ocean  and  situated  wholly  or  in 
part  north  of  Chesapeake  Bay  is  from  August  16  to  Novem- 
ber 30  (figs.  1  and  2). 

RESTRICTIONS  ON  TAKING,  POSSESSING,  AND  TRANSPORTING  BIRDS. 

Under  the  law  and  regulations,  it  is  unlawful  to  capture 
or  kill  migratory  game  birds,  except  with  a  gun  not  larger 
than  No.  10-gauge,  or  to  hunt,  kill,  or  attempt  to  hunt  or  kill 
birds  from  airplanes,  power  boats,  sailboats,  or  any  boat  under 
sail.  Power  boats  and  sailboats  may  be  used  to  take  gun- 
ners to  and  from  the  hunting  grounds,  but  shooting  or  at- 
tempting to  shoot  migratory  birds  from  them  is  prohibited. 
Nor  can  such  boats  be  used  to  harry,  worry,  or  disturb  the 
birds  in  any  manner. 

Uniform  bag  and  export  limits  are  fixed  by  the  regula- 
tions. Under  the  export  regulations,  not  exceeding  two  days' 
bag  limit  may  be  sent  out  of  a  State  by  one  person  in  one 
calendar  week.  No  restrictions  are  placed  on  the  number  of 
birds  that  may  be  shipped  within  the  limits  of  a  State,  such 
shipments  being  governed  entirely  by  State  laws. 

Any  package  in  which  migratory  game  birds  or  parts 
thereof  are  transported  or  carried,  whether  within  or  with- 
out a  State,  must  have  conspicuously  marked  on  the  outside 
the  names  and  addresses  of  shipper  and  consignee  and  an 
accurate  statement  of  the  numbers  and  kinds  of  birds  con- 
tained. 


12  Tearbooh  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture. 


V-'-y-'A  OCT.l-J/iN,  15 
^M  OCT.  I6-J/1N.3I 


SEPT.I6-  DEC.3I 
NOV.  I  -J/^N.  31 


Fig.  1. — Open  seasons  fixed  by  Federal  regulations  adopted  in  1918  for 
waterfowl  (except  wood  duck,  eider  ducks,  and  swans),  coot,  galliuules,  and 
Wilson  snipe  or  jacksnipe.  Wood  ducks,  eider  ducks,  and  swans  are  pro- 
tected for  a  term  of  years  under  the  provisions  of  a  treaty  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  for  the  protection  of  birds  migrating 
between  the  United  States  and  Canada. 


SEPT.I6-DEC.3I 
\SEPT.I-DEC.I5 


]0CT.I-J/JN.I6 


/1UG.I6-N0V.30 
NOV.I-J/IN.31 


Fig.  2. — Open  seasons  fixed  by  the  Federal  regulations  adopted  in   1918  for 
black-bellied  and  golden  plovers  and  greater  and  lesser  yellow-legs. 


Federal  ProtecHon  of  Migratory  Birds.  13 

SALE  OF   MIGRATORY   BIRDS   PROHIBITED. 

The  hunting  of  migratory  game  birds  for  the  market  has 
contributed  perhaps  more  than  any  other  cause  to  the  de- 
pletion of  the  supply,  and  has  created  an  almost  universal 
demand  for  laws  prohibiting  their  sale.  As  a  necessary 
measure  to  conserve  the  supply  and  increase  the  breeding 
stock,  the  regulations  do  not  provide  for  the  sale  of  any 
migratory  birds,  except  for  scientific  or  propagating  pur- 
poses under  permit,  and  as  a  consequence  it  is  unlawful  to 
sell  wild  ducks  or  other  migratory  birds  for  commercial 
purposes  anywhere  in  the  United  States.  For  many  years 
most  States  have  had  laws  prohibiting  the  sale  of  game  dur- 
ing part  or  all  of  the  year,  but  the  open  markets  in  near-by 
States  made  it  profitable  for  the  market  hunter  to  continue 
in  his  destructive  vocation,  as  it  was  always  possible  for  him 
surreptitiously  to  ship  the  birds  to  the  markets  where  they 
could  be  sold  lawfully.  The  closing  of  the  markets  will 
make  it  more  difficult  to  dispose  of  the  birds  and  will  remove 
the  incentive  to  slaughter  them  in  such  large  numbers.  This 
prohibition  against  the  sale  of  migratory  birds  has  been  very 
generally  approved  by  sportsmen  and  conservationists  and 
by  the  United  States  Food  Administration. 

GAME  FARMING. 

'The  general  prohibition  against  the  sale  of  migratory 
birds  has  created  a  great  demand  for  domesticated  birds  to 
supply  the  market.  To  meet  these  demands,  the  regulations 
under  the  treaty  act  make  suitable  and  liberal  provisions  for 
the  propagation  of  migratory  waterfowl.  These  provisions 
apply  to  all  persons  who  possess  migratory  waterfowl  for 
any  purpose. 

Permits  are  issued  free  of  charge  by  the  Secretary  of  Ag- 
riculture, through  the  Bureau  of  Biological  Survey,  author- 
izing persons  to  acquire  a  limited  number  of  wild  water- 
fowl, to  be  used  as  the  nucleus  of  a  breeding  stock  or  to 
strengthen  the  strain  of  birds  already  possessed,  and  to  pos- 
sess and  traffic  in  domesticated  migratory  waterfowl  for  food 
purposes. 

Aside  from  the  necessity  of  obtaining  Federal  permits, 
marking  packages  in  which  the  birds  or  eggs  are  shipped, 
and  reporting  to  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  on  operations 


14  Yearbook  of  the  DepartTnent  of  Agriculture. 

under  the  permits,  the  breeding  and  traffic  in  the  birds  is 
carried  on  entirely  under  the  supervision  of  the  several 
States. 

The  fact  that  many  States  have  enacted  no  laws  on  the 
subject,  together  with  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  laws  of 
other  States,  has  deterred  many  persons  from  engaging  in 
the  business,  but  it  has  been  demonstrated  that  many  species 
of  waterfowl,  particularly  black  and  mallard  ducks,  can  be 
raised  profitably  on  lands  unsuited  to  agriculture  and 
also  in  connection  with  agricultural  pursuits.  There  seems 
to  be  a  growing  sentiment  in  favor  of  more  uniform  leg- 
islation on  the  subject  in  order  that  domesticated  birds 
may  reach  the  markets  with  the  least  inconvenience  to  the 
breeders,  while  at  the  same  time  the  protection  of  wild  birds 
may  be  safeguarded  properly.  This  could  be  accomplished 
in  a  simple  and  inexpensive  manner  if  a  marking  and  tag- 
ging system,  similar  to  one  that  has  been  in  successful  op- 
eration in  New  York  State  for  many  years,  were  adopted. 
Enactment  of  proper  laws  by  all  States,  giving  full  recog- 
nition to  this  legitimate  business,  would  encourage  persons 
to  propagate  wild  fowl  in  captivity,  thus  materially  adding 
to  the  food  supply  and  affording  a  pleasant  and  profitable 
occupation  for  a  large  number  of  people. 

CONTROL  OF  BIRD  DEPREDATIONS. 

Despite  the  almost  general  usefulness  of  birds,  certain 
species  at  times  become  seriously  injurious  to  crops  in  some 
localities.  Recognizing  the  importance  of  controlling  such 
,  /  depredations,  the  regulations  make  suitable  provision  for  the 
issuance  of  permits  to  kill  any  migratory  birds  which  become 
seriously  injurious  to  agricultural  or  other  interests,  but  the 
birds  so  killed  can  not  be  shipped  or  sold. 

The  control  of  the  depredations  of  wild  ducks  in  the  rice 
fields  of  California  during  the  fall  of  1918  furnishes  a  strik- 
ing example  of  the  successful  operation  of  this  provision  of 
the  law.  After  a  careful  investigation  of  conditions  in  the 
rice  belt,  a  blanket  Federal  permit  was  issued  authorizing 
rice  growers  to  kill  wild  ducks  when  necessary  to  protect  the 
rice  from  damage.  This  permit  insured  the  rice  growers 
protection  from  the  destruction  threatening  their  crops, 
while  the  restrictions  carried  in  the  permit  regarding  ship- 
ment and  sale  afforded  the  birds  ample  protection. 


Federal  Protection  of  Migratory  Birds.  15 

In  the  Southeastern  States  a  similar  destruction  of  rice 
fields  has  threatened  in  the  invasions  of  hosts  of  bobolinks, 
commonly  known  there  in  fall  as  rice  birds  and  farther 
north  as  reed  birds.  During  the  spring  and  summer  months 
the  bobolink  renders  valuable  services  as  a  destroyer  of 
injurious  insects,  but  late  in  the  summer  and  in  fall  it 
changes  its  habits  and  inflicts  serious  damage  to  crops,  espe- 
cially in  certain  Southeastern  States,  where  rice  growing 
has  again  begun  to  flourish.  An  investigation  by  the  Bio- 
logical Survey  showed  that  the  depredations  of  the  bobolink 
in  the  fall  of  1918  resulted  in  losses  to  rice  growers  in  this 
section  of  about  $150,000.  The  birds  descended  on  the  rice 
fields  in  such  numbers  and  were  so  heedless  of  efforts  to 
drive  them  away  that  it  was  apparent  that  the  only  effectual 
remedy  would  be  to  shoot  them  when  in  the  rice  belt  and 
when  migrating  in  that  direction. 

The  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  therefore,  issued  a  permit 
on  January  17,  1919,  authorizing  the  shooting  of  bobolinks 
from  one-half  hour  before  sunrise  to  sunset  from  September 
1  to  October  30  in  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware, 
Maryland,  and  the  District  of  Columbia ;  and  from  August 
16  to  November  15  in  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Caro- 
lina, Georgia,  and  Florida.  Birds  so  killed  are  not  to  be 
sold,  offered  for  sale,  shipped  for  sale,  or  wantonly  destroyed. 
They  may  be  used  as  food  by  persons  killing  them  or  they 
may  be  transported  for  the  use  of  hospitals  or  charitable 
institutions.  It  is  believed  that  action  taken  under  this 
permit  will  insure  rice  growers  against  the  depredations  of 
the  bobolink  without  endangering  the  species. 

ADMINISTRATION  OF  THE  LAW. 

In  the  Bureau  of  Biological  Survey,  which  has  direct 
charge  of  the  enforcement  of  the  law,  are  many  unusual 
advantages  for  administering  its  provisions.  For  years  this 
bureau  has  been  investigating  the  relation  of  birds  to  agri- 
culture, their  breeding  habits,  and  the  times  and  lines  of 
their  migratory  flights.  It  now  has  about  a  million  and  a 
half  migration  cards  covering  a  period  of  nearly  35  years, 
constituting  undoubtedly  the  most  valuable  record  of  this 
kind  in  existence.  It  is  also  well  equipped  through  its  corps 
of  experts  and  hundreds  of  collaborators  in  all  parts  of  the 


16 


Yearbook  of  the  Department  of  Agricultn/re. 


country  to  carry  on  these  investigations.  A  situation  pre- 
sented by  unusual  conditions  occurring  in  any  part  of  the 
country  is  carefully  investigated  and  its  relation  to  condi- 
tions in  other  localities  determined.  The  results  of  these 
investigations  are  disseminated  through  bulletins  and  other 
channels  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  of  all  parts  of  the 
country.  The  bureau  is  now  maintaining  most  cordial  rela- 
tions with  the  game  authorities  of  nearly  all  States,  and 
its  entire  policy  is  along  the  line  of  assisting  States  to  build 
up  and  maintain  their  bird  resources. 

FUTURE  OUTLOOK  FOR  MIGRATORY  BIRDS. 

The  Federal  laws  that  have  been  enacted  for  the  protec- 
tion of  migratory  birds  will,  without  doubt,  go  a  long  way 
toward  insuring  a  supply  for  all  time,  but  the  interests  of  the 
several  States  are  so  inseparably  related  to  the  interests  of 
the  National  Government  that  all  efforts  to  conserve  these 
birds  should  be  coordinated  if  the  fullest  measure  of  success 
is  to  be  attained.  Much  already  has  been  done  along  this 
line.  The  open  seasons  for  wild  fowl  in  25  States  have  been 
made  to  conform  to  the  seasons  under  the  Federal  regula- 
tions, and  in  many  other  States  game  commissioners  and 
sportsmen  have  manifested  a  spirit  of  cooperation  in  game 
conservation  that  fairly  indicates  a  very  general  sentiment 
favoring  uniformity  in  State  and  Federal  laws. 

"V^Hiile  the  results  already  achieved  are  very  gratifying,  the 
future  promises  to  restore  our  migratory  birds  to  such  num- 
bers as  will  afford  abundant  legitimate  sport,  recreation, 
and  enjoyment  for  all  the  people. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 
NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


APR  2  6  2003 


12.000(11/95) 


